Slides | Recording
Please join our Case of the Month Club, a program in which our expert instructors will take a deep dive into recent decisions involving issues that affect all of us on a regular basis. This class, meant for contracting professionals, will focus on different cases, going beyond the mere holding into the history, tactics, and significance of the case as a whole. Whether the cases are bid protests or contract claims, our instructors, all of whom are experienced professionals, will discuss the facts of the cases at hand, the reasons why the cases are important, the strategies that were used, and the lessons that can be learned from them. To maximize your experience, we will send you copies of the cases in advance so that you are primed for the discussion when our program begins. Sound interesting? We hope so, and we look forward to having you with us for the start of the series.
Because the Case of the Month Club will look at recent cases based on their importance to Government Contracting, we will set the class’s Topic several weeks prior to the program. This will help keep the program fresh.
April 9
PCI’s Case of the Month Club program for April will feature two CDA cases. The first case, MLB Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 2024 WL 1281078 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 25, 2024), involves the always-thorny issue of what a contractor should do when the Government’s estimates are significantly higher than actual needs under an IDIQ contract. In this case, however, the contractor encounters serious headwinds at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims because of two pesky issues, the statute of limitations and the obligations imposed on a contractor by a patent ambiguity in the contract. In the second case, JKB Solutions and Services, LLC. V. United States, 2024 WL 1131445 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 15, 2024), is a decision on remand following a Federal Circuit decision that we discussed in January 2022. This time, the court spends a considerable amount of time attempting to decide whether the contract in question is a commercial item contract, ultimately concluding that it is. It then focuses on the question of whether a constructive termination for convenience is appropriately used to resolve an alleged breach of contract. Despite the fact that the court concludes that summary judgment is not appropriate on all the issues, the reader is left to wonder whether the small-business contractor now rues the day it ever filed suit. Join our expert instructors Tracye Howard and Brian Walsh as they discuss these two fascinating cases.
Slides | Recording